UN and EU semantic war in Judea and Samaria backfires

 

Many travel agents, tour operators and airlines seem to have been unwittingly caught up in the Arab-Jewish conflict – as the case of Australia’s national airline – Qantas – has exposed.

Websites like Reservations.com (image below), Champion Traveler and Zen Hotels have also been using the term “State of Palestine” to identify the location of holiday destinations in Judea and Samaria.

Qantas is currently conducting an investigation:

Other travel websites use the term “Palestinian Territories” to pinpoint the location of holiday spots in Judea and Samaria. 

The United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) have been using the term “occupied Palestinian Territories” for the last 20 years to define the territories known as Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza (“Territories”). 

These Territories should be re-labelled the “Disputed Territories” as explained in 2002 by Dore Gold — former Permanent Representative of Israel to the UN (1997 -1999):

“... the use of “occupied Palestinian territories” denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of “disputed territories” been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. Additionally, by presenting Israel as a “foreign occupier,” advocates of the Palestinian cause can delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel. This has become a focal point of Palestinian diplomatic efforts since the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, but particularly since the UN Durban Conference in 2001. Indeed, at Durban, the delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of “occupation” in order to invoke the memories of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War and link them to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

The right of the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in these Territories – part of their ancient and biblical homeland 3000 years ago - was specifically granted by the: 

• San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 
• League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922
• Article 80 of the 1945 UN Charter has preserved this Jewish entitlement until today. 

Travel tour operators cannot escape identifying ancient Jewish sites in Judea and Samaria – even as they use this false and misleading UN and EU language designed to bury their existence:

Tripadvisor describes Kalia Kibbutz as being: “Adjacent to the Caves of Qumran Kalia 90666 Palestinian Territories”

The Dead Sea Scrolls were initially discovered in the Caves of Qumran in 1947. The Scrolls comprise more than 800 documents written on animal skin and papyrus that shed light on the histories of Judaism and Christianity. Among the texts are parts of every book of the Hebrew Bible — the Old Testament —except the book of Esther. The Scrolls also contain the earliest version of the Ten Commandments. Most were written between 200 B.C. and the period prior to the failed Jewish revolt to gain political and religious independence from Rome that lasted from A.D. 66 to 70.

Tripadvisor fails to disclose that Kalia Kibbutz was established in the 1930’s but was destroyed by Transjordan in 1948 when it invaded and conquered Western Palestine. Residents of Kalia and nearby Kibbutz Beit HaArava – established in 1939 - fled by boat on 20 May 1948.The area remained unpopulated save for a Jordanian military camp until lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Kalia was re-established and resettled by Jews in 1972 - Beit HaArava similarly in 1996.

The UN and EU use of language denying Jews have any proprietary rights in Judea and Samaria is pointedly racist.

UN engagement in such reprehensible conduct in blatant violation of its own Charter explains why the UN has failed to end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict. 

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

Israel elections should send clear message to Trump, PLO, EU and UN

[Published 26 February 2019]


Israeli voters at the forthcoming elections on 9 April should be given the opportunity to send President Trump, the PLO, EU and UN a clear message on what they want to see happening in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – the last 5% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty remains unresolved between Jews and Arabs (“disputed territories”).

For this to happen - all political parties need to state in clear and unambiguous terms what their policies in relation to the disputed territories will be if they form part of the next Government.

The options and the choices are many – and include:

1. Continuing to press for a negotiated “two-state solution” – the creation of an Arab State – in addition to Jordan – in all or part of the disputed territories

2. Annexing all or part of the disputed territories

3. Creating Jordanian enclaves in all or part of the disputed territories

4. Maintaining the status quo without any further negotiations

5. Redrawing the international borders between Israel, Jordan and Egypt

Co-head of the front runner Blue and White Party - Benny Gantz – needs to do better than stating:

“The main question is that of security. It [the Government] needs to ensure the State of Israel’s security. Now, there’s a question of interest here. We — and Netanyahu said this in his Bar-Ilan speech (a 2009 address in which the prime minister backed Palestinian statehood) — are not looking to control anyone else. We need to find a way in which we’re not controlling other people.”

Is Gantz talking about the Arab populations in the disputed territories? 95% of the Arab population in Judea and Samaria is under PLO control. 100% of Gaza’s Arabs-only population is under Hamas control. East Jerusalem Arabs are under Israel’s control.

Gantz must articulate his plan for ending what he sees as Israel’s control of other people.

Gantz’s partner Yair Lapid expressed the following view in 2008:

“The greatest tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that everyone knows how it will end. We will divide up the region. Israel will return most of the West Bank, and the Palestinian flag will fly on public buildings in East Jerusalem. The only unanswered question is how many more people will have to die along the way. And so we will fight against the extremists on both sides, including our extremists, the settlers. When you look at the history of wars, they ultimately revolve around one claim: “My god is better than yours.”

Is this still Lapid’s view in 2019? He - like Gantz – owes it to the electorate to spell out his party’s position should it be in the next Government.

Netanyahu needs to state what the Likud Party’s policy is right now – not what it might have been in 2009 or at any time since. All political parties seeking election must do likewise.

Views held in 2008 or 2009 are irrelevant – raking over old coals is counter-productive.

Gantz is right in recognizing that security is the main question at this election – as it always has been.

All the promises and allure of a better and more prosperous society, equality and justice for all - even going to the moon and back – count for nought if those voting are murdered, injured or traumatized to not enjoy the benefits.

President Trump needs to know what outcomes the Israelis want for the disputed territories before issuing his long-anticipated “deal of the century” very soon after the elections. The PLO, EU and UN need to also listen, digest and respond.

The time for straight-talking on the disputed territories is right now.

Palestine - Australia Rejects Fiction To Recognize Reality

[Published 8 June 2014]


Australia will no longer be referring to East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as “occupied territories”.

Attorney-General George Brandis made this clear when he read a statement to the Senate foreign affairs committee this week indicating the language of “occupation” was:

“judgmental”, ”freighted with pejorative implications” and ”neither appropriate nor useful” for the peace process.

This injection of sanity into the contribution being made by the international community to help resolve the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict is long overdue and very welcome.

The use of the terms “occupied territories” by the European Union or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” by the United Nations has emboldened the Arab League, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to maintain their 47 year old demand that every square metre of land captured by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War be returned to Arab control.

The world’s nations need to awaken from their fiction-induced slumber

Their unyielding stance was never contemplated by Security Council Resolution 242 which acknowledged the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised borders. It has been a major impediment to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - resulting in offers by Israel to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of those territories being rejected by the PA in 2000/1 and 2008.

Catherine Ashton - High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy European Union/Vice-President of the European Commission - was pandering to this decades old Arab demand when she told the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 30 December 2009:

“East Jerusalem is occupied territory, together with the rest of the West Bank.”

Israel’s then Deputy Foreign Minister - Danny Ayalon - penned an article in response in the Wall Street Journal on 30 December 2009 - pointing out:

” However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel’s rights to what are generally called the “occupied territories” but what really are “disputed territories.”

That’s because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered “occupied” in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel’s conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years.”

Ayalon criticised the perception that:

“... Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table.”

Ayalon was affirming that the West Bank was “no man’s land” - where sovereignty still remained undetermined.

Israel and the PLO - the PA having been disbanded in January 2013 - still continue to be unable to agree on the final allocation of sovereignty after fruitless negotiations spanning the last 20 years.

The latest round of negotiations ended in total collapse on 29 April with the PLO still demanding sovereignty in 100% of the territories (or perhaps - as has been reported - some land swaps in compensation).

Ayalon’s prediction in 2009 has proved to be chillingly correct in 2014 - and will continue to prevail whilst the PLO refuses to acknowledge that Israel has any claims to sovereignty in these areas.

Such claims are based on legal rights vested in the Jewish people pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1920 and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The PLO considers such rights to be “null and void” under Article 20 of the PLO Covenant - seeking to snuff out Israel’s claims to what was the heart of the Jewish biblical and ancestral homeland 3000 years ago.

Ignoring this body of international law spells disaster for Israel and the PLO ever resolving their competing claims.

Australia’s decision to call a spade a spade will hopefully encourage other countries to follow suit - as well as implementing international action to make some further changes in the duplicitous diplomatic double speak involving the use of misleading and deceptive language which has hindered rather than facilitated any resolution of the conflict.

These changes include:

1. Replacing the term “occupied territories” with the term “disputed territories” to clarify that Jews also have legal rights in these territories in addition to those claimed by the Arabs.

2. Using the 3000 years old term “Judea and Samaria” to replace the term “West Bank” - first coined by Jordan in 1950 to erase any trace of Jews having lived there after having been driven out by the invading Jordanian army in 1948.

3. Substituting “Palestinian Arabs” for “Palestinians” and “Palestinian people” - terms first appearing in the 1964 PLO Charter that excluded former Jewish and other non-Arab residents and their descendants having any rights.

4. Referring to the conflict as the “Jewish-Arab conflict” - which commenced in about 1880 instead of the “Palestinian-Israeli ” conflict - which only commenced in 1948.

5. Omitting any reference to the term “State of Palestine” until the provisions of the Montevideo Convention 1934 are complied with.

The world has been duped into the use of language that reflects fiction - not fact. Used often enough it takes on a highly damaging life of its own.

Erasing such language from the international lexicon is long overdue.

The world’s nations need to awaken from their fiction-induced slumber.

Palestine - Intellectual Ignorance Insults Israel

[Published 5 March 2011]


Novelist Ian McEwan displayed crass ignorance of the Arab-Jewish conflict when recently accepting the US$10000 Jerusalem Prize - awarded to a writer whose work best expresses and promotes the idea of the ‘‘freedom of the individual in society.’‘

The Prize was awarded to McEwan by Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat at a ceremony attended by Israel’s President Shimon Peres and Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat.

Mc Ewan was self-deprecating as he told the audience that he had resisted calls to boycott the ceremony understanding that in doing so he couldn’t escape the politics of his decision.

Those present may have felt heartened when he stated:

“Some of the previous recipients of this prize have spoken their thoughts in a gathering like this and have upset people. But everybody knows this simple fact: once you’ve instituted a prize for philosophers and creative writers, you have embraced freedom of thought and open discourse, and I take the continued existence of the Jerusalem prize as a tribute to the precious tradition of a democracy of ideas in Israel.”

McEwan then took the opportunity to express his thoughts and upset people - basing them on a series of factual inaccuracies that have become mainstream thinking among many intellectuals. His public embrace of these inaccuracies rendered his thoughts of no real credibility or value.

Ian McEwan - Factual Inaccuracies Distort Opinion

Consider the following:

1. McEwan equated the murderous policies of Hamas with the tragic - but accidental - death of four young girls in Gaza when stating:

“I’d like to say something about nihilism. Hamas, whose founding charter incorporates the toxic fakery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, has embraced the nihilism of the suicide bomber, of rockets fired blindly into towns, and embraced the nihilism of an extinctionist policy towards Israel. But (to take just one example) it was also nihilism that fired a rocket at the undefended Gazan home of the Palestinian doctor, Izzeldin Abuelaish, in 2008, killing his three daughters and his niece.”

Was McEwan unaware of the following facts and would he have had a different opinion if he had known that:

(i) The Gaza incident took place in 2009 during Operation Cast Lead - not 2008 - when a rocket fired by Israel during that operation accidentally hit the doctor’s home located in a refugee camp from which rockets were being fired into Israel
(ii) Operation Cast Lead occurred only after a cease fire between Israel and Hamas had been breached between November 2008 - December 19, 2008 when 170 mortars, 255 Qassams, and 5 Grads had been indiscriminately fired upon Israel’s civilian population centres from Gaza.(http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/)

2. McEwan spoke of a

“tsunami of concrete across the occupied territories.”

If he was speaking of Jewish settlements was he cognizant of the fact that they are located on less than 5% of the West Bank?

Why did he choose to use the term “occupied territories” rather than the term “disputed territories”.

As a master of words McEwan would know the inference to be drawn from using such a term is to deny Israel has any legal or historical claim to any part of the West Bank.

3. McEwan decried

“the continued evictions and demolitions, and relentless purchases of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, the process of right of return granted to Jews but not Arabs.”

It was obviously irrelevant to McEwan that such evictions and demolitions followed court orders legally obtained by the owners of these properties against occupants who were found to be illegally trespassing or squatters.

Obviously he resents the purchase of Arab owned land by Jews in transactions freely agreed upon between willing vendors and purchasers. He was silent on expressing any view about the many murders perpetrated on Arab vendors found to have sold land to Jews.

In advocating an Arab right of return he was serving to inflame - and continuing to encourage - an Arab demand that has been rejected by every Israeli government of different political persuasions since 1948. This demand has been one of the principal obstacles to creating a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.

4. McEwan mused:

“Palestinians are split, their democratic institutions are weak or non existent, violent jihadism has proved self-defeating. They have been unlucky in their leaders. And yet many Palestinians are ready for a solution, the spirit is there.”

Fine and encouraging words indeed. But who are these Palestinians? Can he point to the writings of any such Palestinians to support his grand statement?

5. McEwan called for “an end to the settlements” - empty words - unless accompanied by what he thought should happen to the 500,000 Jews who would have to suffer the consequences of that decision. The freedom of these individuals to not be thrown out of their homes obviously was of no consequence to McEwan.

6. He claimed without specifying in any detail that the Palestine Papers had revealed that

“Israel casually brushed aside remarkable concessions from the Palestinian Authority?”

Surely the use of the words “casually brushed aside remarkable concessions” required some amplification. The inference that Israel has no say in accepting or rejecting Palestinian Authority concessions was clear.

Israel’s offer to cede its claims to more than 95% of the West Bank was obviously not remarkable enough for him to point out or highlight as having been refused by the Palestinian Authority.

McEwan’s acceptance speech was a farce and indicated that he had a closed mind on the conflict - rather disappointing, considering he had this to say:"

"the novel as a literary form was born out of curiosity about and respect for the individual. Its traditions impel it towards pluralism, openness, a sympathetic desire to inhabit the minds of others.”

Any attempt by him as a novelist to display these attributes was clearly missing in the biased and controversial viewpoints he expressed.

Mc Ewan is certainly entitled to express his opinion. Those listening to him are equally entitled to consider his reliance on factual inaccuracies in the formation of such opinion as sufficient reason to dismiss that opinion as irrelevant and of little value.

Mc Ewan is undoubtedly a novelist of great distinction. He should stick to fiction - which was clearly evident in his inaccurate representation of the realities of the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Come to think of it - given his inaccurate remarks - McEwan would probably have been better staying at home and receiving the award of the Jerusalem Prize in absentia.